getfunky said...

Hang on (and i may be wrong here) but i thought Hicks had been on board with some AQ turkeys earlier but in Afghanistan was fighting alongside the Taliban, who were recognised as the governing body in Afghanistan at the time the co-al troops from US/Oz/Pommyland etc invaded?

That does not make Hicks an active member of AQ but rather a Taliban footsoldier (or Truck minder as may be the case) for a very unpopular polital/military faction, but recognised as the govering body of AG all the same.

Makes my blood boil when facts get smudged and people take a mis-informed crack at him as though he intended to kill Oz troops as a mission.


But at no time was Hicks ever a terrorist. Got it.

Keep peddling the Howard and cronies lie - if you don't care for the muddier harder to fathom truth.

Sorry Funky, but I still don't think you have the picture. How about another exerpt from his letters home - this is David's Hicks' own words by the way...

In a letter in May 2001:

I have told you about the non-Muslims they send a lot of spies here especially to Osama Bin Ladens Arab organisation which is where I am.

One way to get around (the spies) is to direct a letter to Abu Muslim Australia I have met Osama bin Laden about 20 times he is a lovely brother the only reason the West call him the most wanted terrorist is because he got the money to take action.

Im going back again (to afghan) and this time with the Arabs direct to the Arab camps. So I will get to meet him (Osama) again. There is a group of us going.

Surely there is no doubt as to what OBL's Arab organisation is? He is not talking Taliban here he is talking Al Qaeda, and clearly says he is with them. By all means argue for fair treatment after capture, but don't be fooled into thinking he was innocent. You don't need to have killed anyone to be a terrorist. He sympathised with and supported Al Qaeda and was with them all the way up to and past 911.

I might just point out that OBL was regarded as a terrorist and was on the 10 most wanted list long before 9/11.
He was deemed responsible for a number or bombings on embassies and hotels and other western interests for over 10 years before 9/11 and it is inconceivable that Hicks was not aware of this. Particularly in light of the fact that Hicks writes home boasting that he has met OBL many times and has attended meetings or gatherings with him. He says that he doesn't speak Arabic and therefore wasn't aware what was being said at these meetings but although I believe him in that he doesn't speak Arabic, I think it is a complete lie that he was unaware of what was the message of the meetings and what OBL stood for. It would be like attending a meeting with the pope and then claiming that you weren't aware that the pope was a catholic because you don't speak italian.

In 1996 OBL openly declared war on the United States AND it's allies. That's us! Australians. That's 5 years BEFORE 9/11.
Therefore by running off and joining any armed force which was organised or financed or associated with OBL would by definition be joining up with a force which was at war with the US and its allies.
It is clear that OBL was associated with the group that Hicks was training with and it is clear from Hicks own letters that he knew it. I can't believe that they gathered to hear OBL recite poetry. The speeches were certainly an incitement to violence and war against the west. And if Hicks couldn't understand the language I'm sure he would have asked someone who could to explain it to him.

The problem was, there wasn't really any Australian law that concisely prohibited such behaviour. Up to this point it was probably seen that nobody would be so unreasonable to do that sort of thing and therefore a law against it was not necessary.
They were wrong, and since that time we now have over 50 pieces of new legislation and laws specifically prohibiting this and other odd ball behaviours.
And there's the problem.
Every new law and piece of legislation and security measure acts to shackle and restrict every person in the country, not just the idiots whose lunatic actions have made the laws necessary. So on that basis I have little sympathy for Hicks and his previous or current discomfort.

One other thought... I heard Malalai Joya (former Afghan parliamentarian) said something on Qanda a few weeks ago that bears repeating. She said "... the silence of the good people is worse than the action of the bad people."

By the way pweedas - you'll be interested to know that the Brits are winding back their anti-terror laws. We should be pushing to do the same. Do you know that anyone can be held for no reason at all other than a suspicion that you may know something? For months in the Haneef case.

SomeOtherGuy said...

None of which explains pweedas what laws he broke.

He broke the law of common decency. And yes I know that's not a law on the statute books. It shouldn't need to be.
It's like your kid doing something which is totally beyond the pale and them defending his action by wailing "Well you didn't tell me not to do it."
And you rightly reply,. "Well I shouldn't have to."
In that case, he knows it, you know it, everyone knows it but he's just trying to weasel out of his responsibilities by passing the blame onto you because you didn't tell him not to do it.
You expect that from kids because they try everything on but it's not acceptable from adults.

getfunky said...


And it comes down to this Paradox. If the evidence was so overwhelming - why didn't Hicks face a fair trail? Answer me that $40,000,000,000 question?

Whoa there Funky. I am not commenting on the fairness of his treatment or (especially) the actions of the US now or at any time in the past. I think in most areas here we will probable agree. International Law is complex and I won't even think of trying to understand it to make a judgement on whether any were broken or if they were can they be proven.

I merely wanted to present a factual argument against a seeming growing belief that the esteemed Mr Hicks was a poor world traveller/freedom fighter who found himself in a bad situation and is being persecuted for it.

FormulaNova said...

You don't generally lock up your kid for 5 years for doing something you didn't tell them about and that is not a formally recognised law do you?

If one of your children went off and actively supported some organisation which was clearly plotting your demise you might be a little slow to jump to their aid when the product of their own stupidity came home to roost on them.
You would probably do enough to make sure that their life was not in danger and then leave matters to take their own course.
That's what happened.

And yes, I do think there are lots of things which are outside the written law but should not be done, as a matter of common decency.
If you think every conceivable action should be regulated by a specific law for or against, then the country may as well be communist, or Gestapo or some other authoritarian regime.
The thing which makes a FREE country workable is the assumption that people will behave with common decency. Sadly these days, that seems to be less and less of the case.
Your questioning of the principle seems to confirm this.

felixdcat said...

What D H (David Hicks) says is that he met Osama Bin 20 times and that he new nothing of al quaida?????? WTF????

Actually he maintains that not only did not know about Al Qaeda until after capture, he did not know about 911 until just prior to his capture in December 2001.....

He has also admitted that many terrorist videos (actual bombings etc) were shown at his training camps for motivational purposes. But apparently he was not motivated by them....and apparently no one at Al Qaeda thought 911 was very motivational in the few months after???

I can believe he may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but really??

Taliban and northern alliance and what they did to Hicks when he was in there hands are not relevant pweedas. The USA does have laws. Australia does have laws. Even laws governing war pweedas and the treatment of people in them.

BOTH governments chose build some artificial construct to actively try to get around the laws. In that regard we were no better than the people we were supposed to be fighting against.

getfunky said...


US is the biggest problem in the world today.. well was actually - China has surpassed the US in every way already and one day the US may even realise that too.

Fair point, but you think the US Foreign Policy is morally questionable.....just wait for China to start playing in the sandpit for keeps.....

Paradox said...

getfunky said...


US is the biggest problem in the world today.. well was actually - China has surpassed the US in every way already and one day the US may even realise that too.

Fair point, but you think the US Foreign Policy is morally questionable..

Morally questionable? Spose the holocaust was a 'bit naughty' then?

Paradox said...
just wait for China to start playing in the sandpit for keeps.....

You mean you haven't noticed that they already have our economy by the short n curlies, and VERY soon our agriculture/food security too?

As long as wev'e got cheap LCDs it's all good mate.


Fair dinks, I reckon most of the people out there wouldn't notice the smell of sh!t if the mistook a dog tuuurd for a Cuban cigar and tried (unsuccesfully) to light it.. again.. and again.

That's what a smattering of historical awareness has taught me at least.

pweedas said...

FormulaNova said...


So, please name some things which " are outside the written law but should not be done, as a matter of common decency", which merit incarceration without a charge?

One?

Hmm,.let me think now,..
how about going off and joining an organisation whose stated aim was to carry out a previously declared war on "America and its allies." ?

So, your argument is that there is only one thing outside the written law that falls into this scenario, and it is the one that he should have known? Its a bit of a circular argument don't you think?

I question your assertion, and this somehow proves your point?

Yes. The point being that society has slipped to the point where an action which should be roundly condemned by all is now being justified, rationalised and then excused by some on the basis of technicalities.
The clear fact is, his actions were WRONG!

Technicalities? Not having proof of doing something is now a technicality? I would have just called it, not having proof.

Remind me again, what were his actions as you recall them?

I think an example (or lack of one) of your unwritten laws would be able to demonstrate that you argument doesn't hold much water. I would be very worried about a government or people that would turn around and say something is really bad, bad enough to be punished for, but not actually bad enough to write a law about.

Well that's been fixed now hasn't it? Now there is a law against it.
And that bothers me too because the laws that have been introduced to fix this problem can now be abused by the powers that be to create further injustices. We were better off without the laws and without the clown that made them necessary.

There's a law for this now? In this country? Has David Hicks been charged with it, and if not, why not?

I think your comment about 'Gestapo' seems more relevant to the notion that you can invent laws, not write them, but then punish people for them. Which one sounds more like Gestapo?

Yes I have to agree on that one and I'm not happy about it. But that's the result of some silly boy running off and joining enemy forces whose stated aim is to bring down western style governments, and in this case, specifically including ours.

I have to conclude from your comments that you have been persuaded by reading his book that he was just a poor misunderstood boy who went off on a world adventure and never meant to hurt anyone.
Whether he knew it then or not, and whether he knows it now or not, he was in with a group who had more diabolical intentions than that.
Had he stayed with them longer he would have found out the hard way and it probably would have cost him his life,.. and many other lives.

If anything, I have been persuaded by reading the book that the information that we the public got about this issue was very dubious, and open to criticism. I don't know whether David intended something more than he did or not.

Where is the proof? Where was our government in this issue until it became too politically dangerous for them to ignore it any longer?

All I remember seeing as proof at the time was a picture of a bloke with a rocket launcher. In context it sounded incriminating, but when you learn that it was given to the press by his mate, and is of a completely different year and location, and is a poster shot bragging to his mates, you have got to wonder if there was any real evidence. If there was, why wasn't it used?

For all this, this is just a discussion topic, and its okay to have different opinions. No one's going to put you away in this country for having one.

So get funky
Your vision for the world is that of Bin Laden's 2IC
Got some funky pictures of his embarassing moments
Bush and his ilk may be far from perfect but until
people like you find fault with the islamist point
of view and get funky pictures of their imperfections
your days of freedom of expression are numbered.

So get funky
Your vision for the world is that of Bin Laden's 2IC
Got some funky pictures of his embarassing moments
Bush and his ilk may be far from perfect but until
people like you find fault with the islamist point
of view and get funky pictures of their imperfections
your days of freedom of expression are numbered.


Perhaps my freedoms are coming to an end, but most likely with right wing overlegislation boofhead..er boofta.

I don't recall saying Bin Laden or his ilk were tops.. but please point that out to me if I have erred.

Bush and co are far fa far far faaaaaaaarrrrr from perfect. And that my friend is a VERY BIG understatement.



I try not to generalise about religions. None are really my cup of tea - I see value in most but flaws in al because essentially they are guided by (often) corrupt humans/govt with other agendas and purposes than human happiness and welfare.


I have met beautiful people from most religions (including Muslims 3 months after 911 in Thailand who were incredibly gracious and kind) however, as i have said before, fundamental Christians nutters (like coke-toting-draft-dodging-utter fk up born-again Bush and co.) actually scare me as much as, if not more than fundamental Islamic nutters.

Why? Because the Christian nutters actually affect the media/politics and way of life in THIS country and most western countries (like good ol' US of A) and their influence is more insideous, wider and further reaching and informs exactly the sort of comment you make about the 'Islamic point of view' as tho somewhere it is written in stone that Islam is wrong and essentialy all Muslims are dangerous.

Not sure if you know but there are plenty of options out there in the world mate. Christian/western ideals are a drop in the world's oceans.

But unless you tune out from the US/christian saturation you probably won't ever realise that.



Do you ever stop to think the white trash scum bashing his missus at the bus stop is a western christian backgrounded person?

Probably not, but I bet every time you see someone looking middle eastern behaving badly "Kn Muslim scum" is right there at the forefront of your mind.

Think about why you differ there, actually think about it. Where did that come from?

Then get back to me about the "Islamic point of view".



I was lucky enough to know Muslim people growing up. Not close or anything but people my mum worked with. Lowly paid, hard working, close families. When i went to their houses and parties etc I had to eat all sorts of weird smelling/tasting foods (LOL - that I now love) and although they dressed 'funny' I was lucky enough to realise they are more like me than 'agin me'.


Islam has scary nutjob minorities, so do Chrissos (Norway on anyone else's mind here?) Hindus, and even Budhists etc etc.


Stop painting all the Muslims the same. It is ignorant, and fed to you by xenophobic morons like Bush/Murdoch/Howard etc.


The Islamic cleric (primary teacher - not running an AQ camp in case your are thinking it) I met on the train to Ayuthaya (Nth of Bankok) 3 months after 911 handed my wife and I a small photo album with a note in the front with (paraphrase as his words were better than mine will ever be) "All god's children are loved and all god's children should be happy".

In the album were pics of him on the same train with travellers from all over the world. Everyone of looked as happy in the pics as my wife and did in our pics with him.

It was a buzz to meet someone like that - especially so close after 911.



Get out there, experiance some non-western, non-christian ways of life and don't be so afraid mate. You just might be surprised at how 'human' most people are.

getfunky said...

Tsk tsk Formula.. I think you are just being an anti Yank cynic

I don't know why you wouldn't have faith in the US vision of the future??

Peace justice and the American way. I'm totally on board with that and trust their vision for the world completely.

Hilarious! I am sure that they are night vision binoculars...


Nah, just to make it clear, I think that the military just got a little bit carried away about it, as they were understandably angry at the attacks on their country. Unfortunately in this case there is no obvious enemy, and no smoking gun, so they tried hard to make one up.

I am one of those weirdos that think some of these wars by the USA are actually a good thing... I know its not a popular view, but I think sometimes these countries are pretty bad without the US's involvement.

getfunky said...

Fair nuff Formula, we may differ in some regards but you seem to be informed and draw your opinions from knowledge beyond the easily digestable headline and RPG pic and I respect that.

I am one of those weirdos that think some of these wars by the USA are actually a good thing... I know its not a popular view, but I think sometimes these countries are pretty bad without the US's involvement.

Yeh - I know what you mean. Problem is subverting 'liberation' to becoming an extended state and oil providore for US interests.

It is also impossible to escape the fact that in Iraq (for example) exponentially higher numbers of innocent citizens have died (+100,000) and are far worse off in almost every quality of life aspect (except the democratic right to vote and Kurdish minority.. debatable though) than they were before.

All easy to be a smarty pants about and point out in hindsight of course.

Sometimes it may well be 'better the devil Saddam you know'.[}:)]



BTW - they ain't nightvision goggles, G Dubbya just hasn't worked out the lens caps are on. My money is nobody said anything for a minute.. or two.. waiting for him to realise the error, and by then it was too late. Shades of WMD/Iraq?


Truth is much funnier than fiction.. when nobody gets hurt.

Yeah, I know it was a joke I figured that might've been what they told GW Bush when he said he couldn't see through them.

I am also an optimist, in that no matter who you elect, hopefully the guys behind them making the decisions, are actually experts in their fields. Sometimes they get it wrong too.

I just remember talking to a work mate years ago (1996?) from Iran and he was telling me how bad it was for his family there. I think sometimes it is easy to assume that these countries are all rosy before the US gets involved.